[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension - IAB comment

David Farmer farmer at umn.edu
Thu Jun 30 10:01:43 EDT 2011

On 6/29/11 01:40 CDT, John Curran wrote:
> On Jun 28, 2011, at 3:05 AM, David Farmer wrote:
>> I would like to request John and ARIN staff to investigate possible precedent documented in RFC 3849[1] by the allocation of 2001:DB8::/32 by APNIC.  My interpretation of the text in the RFC is that APNIC passed a policy allocating a prefix for documentation purposes and then members of the APNIC community authored an Informational RFC documenting the allocation and the technical justifications to the IETF.
> David - I'm quite familiar with the RFC 3849 document, but that does not
> automatically alter the existing agreements which outline the roles of the
> IANA and the RIRs (and one might readily argue that there is far more at
> issue with shared transition reservation versus a documentation prefix...)

Thank you, John.

I agree there is definitely more at stake than in the case of the 
documentation prefix.

In reviewing RFC 2860 again and the IAB response you provided, I no 
longer believe ARIN should move forward with any action on 2011-5 
without express direction from the IAB.  I have come to this conclusion 
because of section 4.2 of RFC 2860 which defines the IAB as the arbiter 
of any conflict between IESG and IANA (ARIN in this case).  Originally, 
I was focusing on section 4.3 as that is what was quoted in your inquiry 
and the response.

> Note - this doesn't mean that your suggestion regarding the next step isn't
> perfectly reasonable, as follows:
>> Therefore, I would like to suggest representatives from the ARIN Community, and the ARIN AC, author and submit and Informational RFC documenting the allocation of the /10 per ARIN policy development process, including the technical details and justification surrounding it.
> I believe that there are folks working on exactly that: I know that Chris
> Grundemann and Benson Schliesser both expressed interest to me to working
> on this effort, and I encourage anyone else interested in helping out to
> reach out to them accordingly.

I will provide specific suggestions and feedback for such an Internet 
Draft elsewhere on the thread.  However, here I think it is important to 
mention that; the intent of the ID should be, and I believe the intent 
of 2011-5 is, that this allocation is a necessary option and preferable 
to multiple providers requesting separate allocations from the RIRs.  It 
is this later possible outcome that makes this more than just a 
technical allocation that is a matter for the IETF and that has 
addressing policy implications that at least overlap the ARIN policy 
community's interests.

Beyond focusing on the needs of some operators for an option other than 
just classic RFC 1918 allocated space, the ID should be clear it is not 
prescribing the use of this allocation either and should probably 
recommend the use of RFC 1918 space as preferable when that is possible. 
Further, it should be honest about the short comings of use the 
allocation and should suggest technical means of mitigating these short 
coming where possible.

To put it plainly, there isn't a good option available here, only bad 
options, in such a situation it is usually best to provide several 
option and allow the local conditions to dictated what the least-worst 
option is on a case-by-case basis.

>> And, once the Draft is submitted, the board move forward with implementing 2011-5 based on the precedence of the allocation of 2001:DB8::/32 by APNIC, as documented in RFC3849.  I believe RFC2860 is clear that the IETF has a role, and it is desirable and necessary that such an allocation should be documented in RFCs, but it is not clear to me that ARIN cannot and MUST not make such an allocation base on the clear policy will of its community, especially based on the precedent of RFC 3849.
> I will convey this to the ARIN Board as one possible course of action
> when it considers the IAB response. Making the reservation for this
> purpose without conferring with IAB would not have respected the nature
> of the ARIN/IANA relationship, and the exact degree of engagement with
> the IETF community which is most appropriate is a matter of judgement.
> To the extent that we have a clear document in the IETF which explains
> why the reservation is needed, along with a strong show of support in
> that community, the path forward will not be difficult.

As I said, I now believe the proper course of action is to hold off on 
any action and coordinate with the IAB.  But, ARIN probably needs to 
clarify its exceptions with the IAB asking for the IAB to ensure fair 
and timely consideration within the IETF and by the IESG, and that any 
delaying tactics would be unacceptable. ARIN should probably reiterate 
that while this may be a technical allocation, it has serious addressing 
policy implications that are within the scope of ARIN's policy process. 
This is not simply a case of forum shopping, the ARIN policy community 
has legitimate concerns regarding this issue and that need to be 
provided equal weight to the technical considerations of the IETF.


> Thanks!
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO

David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list